The Mathura Court on November 13 rejected the bail applications of two Campus Front of India (CFI) members and one driver. All three applicants along with a journalist from Kerala were arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police on their way to Hathras in October.

Government Counsel (Mathura) Shiv Ram Singh told The Indian Express, “The court today (Friday) rejected the bail applications of Atiq-ur-Rahman, Masood and Alam. On Thursday, after hearing arguments from both sides, the court had reserved its order.”

The court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Mayur Jain delivered three separate orders as reported by LiveLaw. The bail pleas were rejected on the basis of the bar under Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The orders state that the bail pleas are liable to be rejected due to the embargo created under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. Section 43-D (5) states that:

“..no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

In addition to charges under UAPA for raising funds for a terrorist act, the court noted that the three were also accused of sedition and promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings that attract sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The court also took into account the allegations of the Prosecution that the accused intended to create disharmony and through the website ‘Justice for Hathras Victim’, they sought to propagate anti-national emotions among the youth.

The Single Bench observed that the prosecution’s allegations against the accused are ‘grave in nature’ and thus keeping in mind the mandate of Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, the Court rejected the three bail applications.

Background

The bail plea of the three accused were rejected in the lower court of Mathura on October 16 and hence they moved Sessions court as reported by SabrangIndia. In addition to this, journalist Siddique Kappan’s habeas corpus petition is pending before the Supreme Court and is listed on November 16.

On November 11 the court of District and Sessions Judge Sadhana Rani Thakur (Mathura), admitted the revision plea filed by the three men against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which allowed 48-hour police remand of the youths. The next hearing on this matter is on November 27.

They were all arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police after a laptop and some ‘objectionable’ literature relating to ‘Justice for Hathras Victim’ was allegedly recovered from their possession while they were en route to Hathras.

It is alleged that they are linked with Popular Front of India’s (PFI) student wing Campus Front of India (CFI) and were traveling from Delhi. Presently, the four men are lodged in Mathura Jail.

Related:

UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’
Hathras case: Mathura court admits revision plea of three charged for sedition
Hathras case: Mathura court reserves bail order of three charged for sedition

The post Hathras case: Mathura court rejects bail plea of two CFI members and driver appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Mathura Sessions Court reserved its order on bail applications filed by two Campus Front of India (CFI) members and one driver. All three along with a Kerala based journalist were arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police when they were on their way to Hathras to meet the deceased girl’s family.

Government Advocate Shiv Ram Singh appeared for the Uttar Pradesh Police. Madhuban Dutt Chaturvedi represented all the accused.   

Additional District and Sessions Judge Mayur Jain noted the arguments presented by both parties and decided to reserve its order till tomorrow. As reported by The Indian Express, Madhuban Dutt said that,

“In the bail applications, we told the court that no crime could be made out against these three youths. Also, so far, police have failed to collect any evidence against them. We also questioned the state government’s decision of ordering UP Police’s Special Task Force (STF) to investigate the case.”

Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 stood violated as argued by Advocate Dutt. This section lays down the appropriate procedure to investigate the offence from a report prepared by the police officer to forwarding it to the State Government and Central Government.

“A case under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act should be investigated by NIA and till a decision is not taken by the government, the Station House Officer of the police station concerned (where FIR has been lodged) should investigate the case”, added the defence counsel.

The bail plea of the three accused were rejected in the lower court of Mathura on October 16 and hence they moved Sessions court. In addition to this, journalist Siddique Kappan’s habeas corpus petition is pending before the Supreme Court and is listed on November 16.

SabrangIndia had reported on November 11 that the court of District and Sessions Judge Sadhana Rani Thakur (Mathura), admitted the revision plea filed by the three men against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which allowed 48-hour police remand of the youths. The next hearing on this matter is on November 27.

The accused have been booked under the UAPA for raising funds for a terrorist act, sedition laws, promoting enmity between two groups and deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage feelings under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. Presently, the four men are lodged in Mathura Jail.

Related:

Hathras case: Mathura court admits revision plea of three charged for sedition
UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’
Hathras arrest: Union moves SC to allow journalist to talk to family, lawyers
CJP moves Supreme Court in Hathras case

The post Hathras case: Mathura court reserves bail order of three charged for sedition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 30, a Mathura court had dismissed a plea to remove a centuries-old Shahi Idgah adjacent to a Krishna temple in Mathura citing provisions of the Places of Worship Act. However, now a civil appeal has been moved in the district court against this judgment.

The Appellants have cited Article 25 of the Constitution that deals with “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion” and says, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

The Appellants have therefore submitted, “It is the right and duty of worshipers to make every endeavour to bring back the lost property of the deity and to take every step for the safety and proper management of the temple and the deity’s property.”

While rejecting the suit on September 30 the Mathura court had reasoned that allowing it would open the floodgates for many more people and even said that the Appellants do not have the right to sue. However, now both these claims are being contested.

Brief background of the case

In September a suit was filed before a Mathura court by the deity Baghwan Sri Krishna Virajman through next friend Ranjana Agnihotri. The other plaintiffs were Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi (birthplace of the deity) and devotees. The primary contention was that the Krishna Janmastan Seva Sangh that looked after the temple property had allegedly entered into an illegal compromise with the Committee of Management of Trust Masjid Idgah in 1968 by way of which a huge chunk of land was given to the Idgah including the spot where the deity was born. The plaintiffs had submitted, “The original karagar i.e birthplace of Lord Krishna lies beneath the construction raised by Committee of Management i.e Trust Masjid Idgah.” It insisted that the truth would be revealed if an excavation were to be conducted.

 The language of the petition itself was deeply communal, as at one point it said, “Under Hindu Law prevalent in India from thousands of years it is well recognized that the property once vested in the deity shall continue to be the deities property and property vested in the deity is never destroyed or lost and it can be regained and re-established whenever it is freed, found or recovered from the clutches of invaders, ultras or hoodlums. The Privy Council, High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have endorsed the above proposition of law.”

In the months preceding this complaint a Krishna Janmabhoomi Nyas Trust was registered on July 23 that counts among its members 80 ‘saints’ from 114 states. On the night of September 20, 2020, members of the Hindu Army were arrested for making a call for the Krishna Janmabhoomi movement. It is also noteworthy that chants of “Ayodhya toh jhaanki hai, Kashi-Mathura baaki hai,” go back to the late 80s and early 90s when the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was at its peak.

Related:

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura court dismisses plea against Shahi Idgah
And so it begins: Civil suit filed to remove Idgah next to Krishna temple in Mathura
Hindu Army members arrested for launching ‘Krishna Janmabhoomi’ movement
Are Kashi-Mathura mosques in the crosshairs of hardliners again?

The post Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Appeal against Mathura Court order appeared first on SabrangIndia.